All Things Gomery: The use of the strategic frame in the coverage of Gomery in English Canadian newspapers By Shannon Sampert, PhD Department of Politics University of Winnipeg [email protected] Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, York University Please do not cite without permission of the author All Things Gomery: The use of the strategic frame in the coverage of Gomery in English Canadian newspapers It was a political event that had all the ingredients for a great news story. A secret slush fund set up to promote federalism. Taxpayer’s money being spent inappropriately and a government that some felt had been in power for too long. For most of 2005, the words Gomery and sponsorship scandal became a part of Canada’s political lexicon. This paper examines the agenda setting and framing functions of English Canada’s two national newspapers in its coverage of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry during four distinct time frames: May 3rd to May 10th, 2005 when Chuck Guité testified at the Gomery inquiry; May 23rd to May 30th, the time period following the release of the forensic accounts report to the inquiry; June 16th to 23rd when final arguments were made; and finally October 31st to November 7th, 2005 when the Gomery report was tabled. I argue that from an agenda setting perspective, the Gomery inquiry was an important news stories, driven by news values of conflict and drama. I also argue that the bulk of the reporting in both national newspapers framed Gomery strategically, with the focus on the “game frame”. The outcome is coverage that lacked an in-depth analysis of the institutional environment that allowed the sponsorship scandal to occur. Instead, I suggest that while the Gomery inquiry garnered a great deal of coverage, the information presented to the public was highly interpretive relying on drama and conflict and arguably diminishing the debate on potential change in government accountability. Background In spring, 2002, the Globe and Mail using the Access to Information Act broke the story that the government had paid out $550-thousand dollars to Groupaction Marketing for a report that was never written. Then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asked Auditor General Sheila Fraser to investigate those allegations and in February 2004, she released her findings. What Fraser determined was that senior government officials running advertising and sponsorship contracts in Quebec and five Crown Corporations did not follow rules for contracting out and as such, “mishandled millions of dollars since 1995.”1 Fraser called the handling of the sponsorship contracts a “blatant misuse of public funds that is shocking. I am actually appalled by what we’ve found.”2 Fraser’s report and “revelations from the unraveling scandal”3 hurt the Liberals dearly. While Martin had asked Justice Gomery to hold an inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, his government cut short the House of Commons Committee on Public Works whose mandate it was to determine “who created the sponsorship program, whether ministers and bureaucrats followed parliamentary rules in conducting the program and whether politicians broke the law.”4 The specter of the sponsorship scandal hurt the Liberals 1 CBC News Online. Indepth: Auditor General. 11 February 2004. www.cbc.ca. Downloaded 23 May 2005. 2 ibid. 3 CBC News Online. Indepth: Federal Sponsorship Scandal 01 February 2006. www.cbc.ca. Downloaded 08 February 2006. 4 Ibid. 2 considerably at the polls in June and the Liberals lost their majority hold in the House of Commons. In September, 2004, Justice John Gomery began hearings into the sponsorship scandal. At first, the hearings were conducted under a publication ban, but that was lifted in part in April of 2005 and then more substantively in May. In May, Charles Chuck Guité, the man who oversaw the public works sponsorship program from 1996 to 1999 took the stand and testified to his role in the program. A publication ban on his testimony was lifted by Gomery, and reporters were allowed to report freely on what was being said. Later that month, a forensic accounting team released its report into the sponsorship scandal that increased the dollar figure on the amount of money spent on the scandal, suggesting that the Liberal government had spent $355 million on sponsorship contracts rather than the original $250 million cited by Fraser.5 In June, final arguments wrapped up and the first report from Gomery was tabled in the House of Commons on November 1, 2005. The Conservatives, quick to act on the outrage over the Gomery report, worked with the NDP to bring down the Liberal minority quickly thereafter with a non- confidence motion in the House of Commons. On November 28, 2005, the Liberal government fell, with Stephen Harper’s Conservatives taking the helm, but again, as a minority government. Agenda setting, framing and news values The media are the primary conduit through which the public learns about political events. As David Taras suggests denying the media’s power to shape public perceptions and influence government is akin to “arguing that the earth is flat or that Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy are real.”6 The media have the ability to “alert the public about which events are important and to set the context within which those events could be understood.”7 They do this in part through agenda setting and framing, both of which are influenced by dominant news values. According to Tamar Liebes, news values or newsworthiness is “the principle guiding selectivity.”8 In other words, journalists use criteria by which a news stories is judged to be important or newsworthy. The media present a highly selective sample of events daily. Journalists are not like National Postal workers who deliver all messages. Instead, they select from thousands of pieces of information what they will cover.9 How an everyday occurrence becomes a news story is based on the journalistic bias towards enduring news values of “drama, timeliness, negativity, (and) conflict.”10 Further, Regina Lawrence posits that media coverage of policy making is “most newsworthy” when “it is marked by a clear conflict that promises a resolution.”11 5 CBC News Online. Indepth: Federal Sponsorship ScandalTimeline. 05 May 2006. www.cbc.ca. Downloaded 23 May 2006. 6 Taras, David. The NewsMakers: The Media’s Influence On Canadian Politics. (Toronto: Nelson Canada, 1990) 3. 7 Ibid, 30. 8 Liebes, Tamar. “Inside a News Item: A Dispute over Framing” Political Communication 17:4. 295. 9 Bain, George. Gotcha! How the media distorts the news (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1994) 3. 10 Robert Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao, Sustaining Democracy? Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1998) at 143. 11 Lawrence, Regina G. “Game-Framing the Issues: Tracking the Strategy Frame in Public Policy News” Political Communication 17:2. 96. 3 In other words, policy debates and more generally debates about government actions are not given attention in the news media unless there is a clear outcome to those debates. Based on this, it becomes clear that the Gomery inquiry, as a policy debate, contained all the main ingredients for a good news story. It provided drama, timeliness, negativity and conflict. Moreover, the conflict can be described as “conflict with movement” which means that the Gomery inquiry provided “clear, chronological markers” and an “identifiable outcome” – a final report that establishes responsibility.12 In this analysis, I studied first the agenda setting function of the media when it comes to dealing with Gomery. This is important because there is evidence that “increased issue salience for the media leads to increased salience for the public.”13 How much newspapers space was given to the coverage of Gomery and what type of coverage was provided? Second, this paper looks at how Gomery was framed. Framing “refers to subtle alterations in the statement or presentation of judgement and choice problems, and the term ‘framing effects’ refers to changes in decision outcomes resulting from these alterations.”14 Framing “asserts that issues, in and of themselves, can be arranged or presented in multiple fashions and as such influence citizens’ ensuing issue considerations and levels of policy support.”15 Framing “defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy.”16 In short, framing elevates some issues and downplays others and in the process, shapes and mediates public opinion. Studies have indicated that journalists rely on the use of the game frame when they cover elections. In fact, the use of the game frame as a news practise in Canada was determined as early as 1979. The game frame in elections in essence “shapes the selection and content of news stories focusing on the horse-race elements of the campaign.”17 Inherent in the use of the game frame is an emphasis on battle or sports metaphors and a focus on winners and losers. While there has been a focus on the media’s use of the game frame during elections, there has been less emphasis on its use in Canada during policy discussions and this is a gap this paper hopes to address. As Lawrence determines, the use of a game frame in reporting a public policy issue is more likely to occur when the news event has what I have previously described as conflict with movement. In other words, when there are clear, chronological steps to the public policy debate. Moreover, the game frame is likely to be applied to public policy issues when they are discussed in national election news.18 Gomery, while not part of a national 12 Ibid, 97. 13 Soroka, Stuart. “Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada..” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14:3.